SSSAJ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:368-373 (1984)
© 1984 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cogo, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Foster, G. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cogo, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Foster, G. R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Cogo, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Foster, G. R.

Soil Loss Reductions from Conservation Tillage Practices1

N. P. Cogo, W. C. Moldenhauer and G. R. Foster2

ABSTRACT

Soil loss reductions by residue cover (mulch) under field conditions were verified by deriving a mulch factor for no-till, chisel plowing plus disking, and spring sweep tillage using anchored and unanchord corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] residues on a 4.5% slope 10.5 m long on Russell silt loam soil. A mulch factor was also derived for sweep tillage using anchored wheat residue on a 6.5% slope Martinsville loam soil, for simulated slope lengths of 35, 60, 85, 110, and 135 m. Both soils are Typic Hapludalfs. The studies were conducted using simulated rainfall and field plots. A crop residue mulch was relatively more effective than roughness alone in reducing soil loss on smoother soil surfaces and on the longer slopes. Corn residue was more effective in reducing erosion than soybean residue, and residues partially incorporated into the soil were more effective in reducing soil loss than residues loose on the surface. The findings showed that the b-value in the mulch factor (Fm)-% residue cover (M) equation Fm = e-bM varied appreciably depending on roughness, and type and incorporation of the residue.


NOTES

1 Contribution from the Soil, Water and Air Sciences, North Central Region, ARS, USDA, in cooperation with the Purdue Agric. Exp. Stn., Purdue Journal No. 9361.

2 Former Graduate Student, Purdue Univ., now with Departamento de Solos, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Soil Scientist, USDA, Agric. Res. Serv. and Professor of Agronomy, Purdue Univ.; and Hydraulic Engineer, USDA, Agric. Res. Serv. and Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering, Purdue Univ., respectively.

Received for publication May 12, 1983. Accepted for publication November 3, 1983.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
W. H. Renwick, M. J. Vanni, Q. Zhang, and J. Patton
Water Quality Trends and Changing Agricultural Practices in a Midwest U.S. Watershed, 1994-2006
J. Environ. Qual., August 8, 2008; 37(5): 1862 - 1874.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
F. Darboux and C.-h. Huang
Does Soil Surface Roughness Increase or Decrease Water and Particle Transfers?
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 6, 2005; 69(3): 748 - 756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1984 by the Soil Science Society of America.